Classifying spells for Spell Research Patches

[Cecell]

Spell Research is a genuinely incredible mod. I've been working on a set of patches that will end up including almost 900 spells. Published Spell Research patches aren't entirely uniform but that's 100% to be expected. Categorizing spells one by one according to their effect and/or name (or even by school of magic on occasion) is highly subjective. The choice of category made by a player when researching, will be inevitably be heavily influenced by the games they have played in the past, by the traits of another spell in vanilla Skyrim or another spell pack or based purely on the spell's name. It is important though that a patch maker not fall into that trap. The subjective view of player A from their gaming experience obviously will not apply to player B. If the classification is tied 100% to ES lore then that could be a problem as well. In practice I've found that defining a spell through the lens of another source can lead to some spell research classifications being almost useless. The only classifications I'm referring to here are "Technique" and "Element". My vision has been affected by the influences I mentioned a moment ago and that wasn't/isn't good. I've spent a bit of time going back and trying to remedy that. Common logic is very useful. Since it can conflict with lore it may result in complaints of broken immersion yadda yadda yadda but I will be trying to stick to a straightforward line of thought when making my patches. If another patch maker decides that this reasoning works, great, if not, that's fine but I believe that all can benefit from a level of consistency. If a spell is classified poorly then a researching player may not be able to discover it via a logical approach. An overly exaggerated example would be a Fire spell being incorrectly assigned to the Frost Element. The player will not find that spell by researching Fire and will be pretty irritated when they discover it while researching Frost.

 

It is guaranteed that a player will research something and after discovering a spell will go "hmm, ok I guess that makes sense" but what I want to avoid is the reaction: "uhhh, ok..." Spells vary so wildly from pack to pack that this scenario can't be entirely avoided but I believe it's a valid concern. I'll refer to the reaction of "uhhh, ok..." later as an "unexpected discovery". The name of a spell is a trap to be honest. The name of a spell may, like a GEICO commercial, in no way represent the effects of the spell. The name of a spell name only matters if the player installs one spell pack, is familiar with the spells of the pack and is trying to find that spell. What I mean is that as a patch maker you have to be very very careful that you don’t categorize a spell based entirely on its name. If you do then you may draw the ire of the player and not the spell’s author. The spell’s name is a reasonably valid point of consideration but is in no way a substitute for actually looking at the spell/magic effect’s description and the assigned magic effects.

 

The first of the two subjective classifications I'm interested in is "Technique". When making a patch, a patch maker can choose to or not to associate spells with anything anywhere and this makes Techniques an interesting creature. Some spells honestly don't belong to any technique if viewed entirely through the lens of the definitions of a modern dictionary or alternatively through the lens of lore. Technically a spell doesn't have to be assigned to a Technique. It may feel right that a 'wrong' technique would be more harmful than 'no' technique but if no technique is assigned then it's a real possibility that a player may assume that every spell has a technique and so after researching each technique are told that there are no more spells to be found they will likely assume they've exhausted the available spells. Remember that a spell can be assigned to more than one technique and that isn't a terrible practice. It will happen that there are only two Techniques that even remotely represent a spell and neither feel quite right. In that case add both. As you'll see in a moment, it is far from impossible for a spell to be assigned to three different Techniques.

 

The more that I've looked at these the more my mind tells me that opposites are necessary for a player's logic. "Curse" for example is a word that is extremely subjective based on its use in other games (and even other spell packs in Skyrim) but more on that later.

 

Here are the Techniques:

 

Cloak

Control

Courage

Curing

Curse

Fear

Frenzy

Infuse

Pacify

Sense

Siphon

Strengthen

Summoning

Telekenesis

Transform

 

"Cloak" is a word so specific in Skyrim that I personally try to use it sparingly. I'm not going to get into the mechanics of a cloak spell's design but suffice it to say that an experienced spell author will see “cloak” differently than a casual player. Remember though, this mod is not for mod authors, it's for players. The most straightforward spells for Cloak actually have "Cloak" in their name or description. Cloak in certain contexts is construed as invisibility, nope, not Star Trek necessarily, what about a spell named "Cloak of Invisibility"? (don't just think Harry Potter, it exists in the Skyrim mod community). Another confusing example would be a spell whose only effect is a light that envelops the player (and maybe even uses the same visual effects as a cloak) but whose sole purpose is to light the area. If you asked for help in a mod design Discord channel and referred to that spell as a Cloak spell you would be corrected and told that you are describing it incorrectly which is interfering with their ability to assist you etc, etc, etc but that is irrelevant in this situation. What if the spell's name is "Cloak of Light"? How about an enveloping shield that looks like a bubble and only absorbs spells? The farther you stray from spells named "Cloak" the more confusing it can get and it will lead to 'unexpected discoveries'. I personally try to avoid using it when possible.

 

"Control" at first glance could be taken exclusively as either taking control of a minion summoned by an NPC or an NPC directly or causing an NPC to become an ally. In that case it is applicable to probably 20-30 spells out of 50 spell packs or more. So, question: Where does Paralyze go? (more on this later) What about a burdening spell that just slows a character as if they're encumbered? or a spell with a knockback effect similar to that of Unrelenting Force? (more on this later as well). If I personally don't feel that another Technique is applicable then I use Control for any effect where the motion or actions of an entity are manipulated beyond their control. Again, since more than one technique can be assigned to a spell there's nothing wrong with assigning "Control" as an additional technique to a spell that alters an entity's mind in any way.

 

"Courage" and "Fear" are opposites and are pretty straightforward. Just don't accidentally classify them as Control only.

 

"Curing" and "Curse" are interesting. At first glance, Curing represents Cure Disease and Cure Poison. Spells like mend, heal, etc though are logically safe to apply here. Any spell that removes a negative effect could also easily apply to Curing. Regarding Curse, its intended meaning can easily be very subjective. Spells described as Curse, from a fantasy themed lore point of view, would be most commonly applied to detrimental spells that are graphically displayed as or are described as being dark but if limited to that line of reasoning it completely eliminates a category that is a direct opposite of Strengthen which is unacceptable. (There is no Weaken) Thus, any spell that debuffs an entity needs to be placed under Curse. Curse would have to apply to a spell whose only effect is damaging the target's health e.g. a spell that causes pure arcane damage (where else would it go?). While that may seem confusing in practice, there isn't an alternative.

 

"Fear" is straightforward. Note that Fear is a secondary effect on many fire spells so keep a look out for that as it could be pertinent. Control applies here as a valid second Technique and would provide a safe logic buffer when researching.

 

"Frenzy" and "Pacify" are conveniently obvious opposites. Like with Fear, Control is a valid second Technique.

 

"Infuse" can obviously be used to categorize any spell that imbues an item with a particular effect like imbuing a weapon with fire or adding a paralysis effect to an arrow. However, it can also logically be applied to spells that could also be classified as "Strengthen" and honestly, how the author of the spell pack chose to name the spell could heavily influence the patch maker's decision. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using "Strengthen" and "Infuse" together and even a third Technique if it's applicable e.g. a spell that heals x/s, makes the player run faster and increases restoration skill by x could have Curing as well.

 

"Sense" can easily enough be applied to anything that affects the 5 senses (don't get into 6th sense or above pls lol). However, I came across a usage for Sense. In the case of a 'Mark' spell there really isn't another option. This could be Marking a target for your followers to attack, Marking a target for a future effect such as the spell "Atronach Mark" from Apocalypse or marking a location for later teleportation recall.

 

"Siphon" initially lends itself to the logic of draining something from a target and transferring it to the caster. However, I've now encountered spells that have magic effects that have "drain" in their name and/or description but don’t transfer the drained stat to any other entity. So in other words, it's just a spell that damages health. In that case you're left with only Siphon or Curse. If you siphon fuel from a gas tank and let it spill all over the ground the fuel is still being siphoned I guess. When my brain reaches for a descriptive word for a "drain" spell, Siphon comes back before Curse but you might as well just use both.

 

"Strengthen" feels straightforward enough and to me at least should obviously represent anything that fortifies a stat. It can even be logically applied as an additional technique to a spell that infuses a weapon with a magical effect. It can get a bit confusing though in the case of spells that restore stats, especially if the spell is named a certain way. A spell named "Invigorate" whose only effect is restoring stamina is uh well restoring 'strength' I guess... but it isn't fortifying/empowering the stat/entity per se. If restoring stamina is Strengthen, then a player may then assume that Strengthen would apply to restoring magicka as well? Then how about health? But that's Curing. Restoring stamina isn't Curing is it? Researching Curing and getting a spell that restores stamina would result in a "hmm, ok I guess that makes sense", which means that it isn't an 'unexpected discovery'. I feel the same about Strengthen applying to a spell that restores stamina. In practice I've found that Strengthen and Curing are the most encompassing opposites for Curse (I guess unless the spell was undoing a transformation curse spell and thus...well that would add a third Technique). Of course, there will be instances where Strengthen applies but Curing doesn't and vice-versa. If modern dictionary based logic is used then a spell that restores Stamina could very well be considered both Strengthen and Infuse unless it stole that Stamina from a target. In that case I would use Siphon instead of Infuse.

 

"Summoning" at its most obvious can apply to anything that comes out of nowhere. This includes "summon", "conjure" and 'bound weapon' spells. However, when applying modern dictionary logic it can introduce a weird question. A spell that brings a persistent NPC, such as a follower, to your current position, especially if the spell is named 'Summon [name here]' easily and obviously fits into Summoning, but wait...that's also teleportation. What if you send your followers home? While that is 'reverse' summoning...that starts to get off track. So then remote teleportation could be considered Control, right? Hmm...Transform can work for teleportation too but that's actually reaching for a fantasy lore explanation and not a dictionary definition, especially if, for example, the teleportation spell wasn't assigned to the Alteration school and is named something like "[Follower's name]'s Flight"? Remember, you're constrained to the design and naming of the spell as laid out by the spell pack's author. Making a patch for Spell Research is not about forming an opinion of the design of a spell pack and oh, by the way, don't bother trying to critique a spell pack's author, this kind of abstract creativity exists in almost every one I've seen (especially the bigger ones). I'm not using Summoning for remote teleportation (sending) but am using Control and hmm, I think I'll add Transform just depending...

 

"Telekinesis" is interesting. Moving something with your mind, right? Well...one dictionary gives this meaning "the supposed ability to move objects at a distance by mental power or other nonphysical means." Well hell... I don't personally think that "other nonphysical means" tracks with fantasy themed logic but again this gets subjective. Unrelenting force has a visible lore based shout associated that is kinetic but definitely not telekinetic. However what about the equivalent of a Force Push? Ok wait, see, the lore in that case says that you're using The Force which then dictates that this isn't telekinesis...or wait is it? Meditation is a big part of that lore and the efficacy of the application of the force is directly proportional to the wielder's mental focus. Anyway, if Telekinesis is used to categorize spells that forcibly move an entity via nonphysical means then you've just described teleportation and elements of summoning (summoning a persistent NPC to your location for example). Next, if Telekinesis is forcing the movement of an entity via nonphysical means then you've just covered a 100% magical paralysis effect (not a paralysis poison) especially if it were named something like "Halt". But wait...that sounds like Control. In the vanilla world of Skyrim telekinesis is the act of drawing an object towards you so I'm personally avoiding Telekinesis unless something specifically references it.

 

"Transform" is easy...or not. Transmuting ore, yep. Changing an object or entity into something different, sure. However, if you limit its use to those effects then it has a pretty limited application and won't be used very often. The Alteration school of magic introduces a few odd scenarios for Transform such as "Blink". Blink is teleportation, so Control, right? But wait, you controlled yourself? Um, well sure... If you're a person with OCD be careful that you don't turn this isn't a ridiculous hair-splitting issue. To solve the problem just assign the spell to more techniques. You don't want the number of assigned techniques to get out of hand but if a player can find Blink via either Transform or Control, would it hurt anything?

 

I'm tired of typing now so I'm gonna call this part 1. Elements will be part 2 when I feel like making it.

[Glanzer]

This is a pretty thorough coverage of the topic I think. It's the same sort of mental journey I went through when trying to decide which archetypes to apply to new spells. I had to go through some of the existing patches to figure out the best way to decide, and after a lot of frustration I found there is no "best" way, there are just several "good" ways and a lot of "bad" ways to do it. It just depends on the interpretation of what the spell is and does. That means if 5 authors created an SR patch for a given spell they'll likely come up with 5 different combination of archetypes.

 

Since that's the case it means a user who wants to learn specific spells must GUESS at what the spell might consist of. And that is very frustrating, especially if the author of the SR patch and the user have different views of the spell. It's why I always use the SR Tome Patcher which converts the spell tome into a spell book that contains the list of archetypes needed for the spell. Otherwise you're just experimenting without much hope.